I thought we renamed it Warsaw Harbor to get the Germans to attack?

"Roosevelt had become president on his public pledge not to go to war, so in order to start a war between the United States and Japan, it had to appear that Japan took the first shot. Japan was caught in Roosevelt's trap and carried out the attack on Pearl Harbor."

Yes, our trap was so stunningly brilliant, we even let them sink the majority of our Pacific Fleet just to make it look "real". This guy should find a buddy to act as second, kneel on his little rug, take up his tanto and make amends.

Damn Germans

Nothing to see here, move along. (new window)

Roosevelt saw what was going on; the American public didn't want another war. Cutting the Japs off was an effective way to poke the nest. USA instigated; yes, it's true.

/;

INB4 nomcleture.

baka-san: These guys are the Japanese version of the people who deny the Holocaust.

Nut jobs all.

This. Though it should be pointed out that Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum though, either.

/not remotely the "trap!!!" theory though

itazurakko: baka-san: These guys are the Japanese version of the people who deny the Holocaust.

Nut jobs all.

This. Though it should be pointed out that Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum though, either.

/not remotely the "trap!!!" theory though

No not a "trap" at all, it was a gambit to prod the American public into war.

The Japanese have never accepted responsibility for their actions with us or with China. The Rape is Nanking isn't mentioned in any of their history books.

Nemo's Brother: The Japanese have never accepted responsibility for their actions with us or with China. The Rape is Nanking isn't mentioned in any of their history books.

Valid point, but outside the scope of this discussion.

Nemo's Brother: The Rape is Nanking isn't mentioned in any of their history books.

Actually it is. But hey... let's have the "the Japanese are the only people who know nothing about their history" meme live on, shall we?

南京大虐殺 was on the list of history terms I had to memorize in high school in the 80's.

Now, I will not deny that stuff is minimized. Sure. But this idea that no one has any idea what went on, or that stuff isn't mentioned at all in the books, is crazy.

While we're here, let's also notice that the Air Force guy from TFA was let go for his statements. It's not as if these controversies don't make the news, nor is it the case that everyone nods, yes, yes, such a great guy.

When the textbook controversies come up, they are covered in all the mainstream papers and news outlets. Recently some people's attempts to deny army involvement in mass suicides in Okinawa was... turned down! With the support of mainstream scholars from all over the country, never mind the local Okinawa people (including politicians).

baka-san: Embargoing Japan did make them want to attack, but they were already at war with our allies(england and Aus), so not as much of a provocation as some like to paint it.

Yeah. I'm not buying into the black vans nonsense, definitely not. Just pointing out that there WAS already a huge war on, and that a blockade isn't quite just "sitting quietly and doing nothing" either (not to imply that there was no reason for the blockade, either - again, there was already a war on with people already doing dastardly deeds).

RobertBruce: I don't think FDR provoked it, but he knew it was coming. Churchill needed us in the war, the American people wanted no part of it. So allowing this to happen was apparently some sort of necessary evil.

Look, there is no way in hell a half competent leader would allow most of the Pacific fleet to be destroyed in order to go into a war where you would desperately need the pacific fleet. No way in hell did they know Pearl Harbor was coming. If they had they would have mousetrapped the attacking planes. An attack that fails and is beaten back is almost as good as an attack that succeeds AND you get to keep your fleet.

I will agree that cutting Japan off was a calculated move to get them to declare war and to possibly attack us, but to think that they would sacrifice the fleet is absurd.

Running a-puck: RobertBruce: I don't think FDR provoked it, but he knew it was coming. Churchill needed us in the war, the American people wanted no part of it. So allowing this to happen was apparently some sort of necessary evil.

Look, there is no way in hell a half competent leader would allow most of the Pacific fleet to be destroyed in order to go into a war where you would desperately need the pacific fleet. No way in hell did they know Pearl Harbor was coming. If they had they would have mousetrapped the attacking planes. An attack that fails and is beaten back is almost as good as an attack that succeeds AND you get to keep your fleet.

I will agree that cutting Japan off was a calculated move to get them to declare war and to possibly attack us, but to think that they would sacrifice the fleet is absurd.

When was RADAR invented?

RobertBruce: I don't think FDR provoked it, but he knew it was coming. Churchill needed us in the war, the American people wanted no part of it. So allowing this to happen was apparently some sort of necessary evil.

Ahem^
That list details the sinkings of the US Merchant fleet from 1939 through 12/31/1941. You'll see our ships started to get torpedoed and shelled a year and a half prior to our "official" entry. So we already had cause, since civilian lives were lost. Regardless if whether or not they were a legitimate target for carrying supplies. These sinkings were a result of our supportive actions since we were already involved in Indo-China, evacuating the Chinese and running supplies to the Brits in Europe prior to our "official" entry.

And Pearl Harbor was not "allowed" to happen by any stretch of the imagination. We got caught with our pants down and had our ass handed to us. If we had "allowed" it to happen, we would have at least responded in a manner that would have avoided the wanton destruction of our fleet and not cost thousands of lives. One does not enter a war by willingly throwing away their fighting forces, that's just insane.

Are you kidding or just not terribly knowledgeable? The bases and installations in Hawaii were not on a war footing (their mistake) and as such did not have their radar receivers on between 4 and 7AM on sunday morning. I guess they figured the Japanese military only worked 5 days a week.

006andahalf: Are you kidding or just not terribly knowledgeable? The bases and installations in Hawaii were not on a war footing (their mistake) and as such did not have their radar receivers on between 4 and 7AM on sunday morning. I guess they figured the Japanese military only worked 5 days a week.

Actually, the radar was operational and did in fact detect the incoming Japanese planes. They were mistaken for our own planes and the contact was ignored.

Also, it would be hard for you to be more incorrect - as part of the alert orders for Pearl Harbor at the time, radar was to operate specifically between 4 am and 7 am, the period thought most favorable for a carrier-based attack.

The Japanese codes had been broken prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and several dispatches were intercepted by diverse sources indicating the attack was on the way, but all of them were blocked before anyone at Pearl Harbor could be informed of the approaching attack.

Thanks to the broken codes and intercepted messages, Roosevelt's cabinet already knew, in advance, the approximate date of a likely attack and the movements of the Japanese fleet.

The attack was extremely successful in swaying the American public in support of a massive military buildup.

The Pearl Harbor attack was certainly no surprise to those in the upper echelons of American politics.

Roosevelt and his administration certainly wanted the US to become involved in WWII around this time, but as a country we were still in kind of an isolationist mode at the time. They were certainly trying to edge us toward being involved and, at the same time, trying to get Japan to make the first move.

Allowing Pearl Harbor to be attacked like it was, however, would have been unnecessary, and I'm positive had they known about it they would have taken steps to put us in a position to fight off the attack a little more effectively at the very least. Really, any attack or attempted attack on our soil like that would have been sufficient for us to enter the war.

Someone needs to punch him until he says he loves America!!!

Actually..the Japanese did exactly what we would have done if the situation was reversed. They wanted to take over the pacific, and our fleet was in the way. So the logical thing to do is smash our fleet. The declaration of war was late due to a translation problem with the coding machine, and the attack was a "suprise". But even a suprise attack makes sense. Why give the enemy a chance to get ready when you can suprise them and pwn them quick? Not that I side with the Japanese about the attack, but we would, and have done the same thing.

SingletonFactory:

You got me. I knew there was some sort of abject incompetence involving the radar crews (more than 300 fighter/dive bombers looking like 6 B-17s)

From the Wikipedia: U.S. Army SCR-270 radar at Opana Point near the island's northern tip (a post not yet operational, having been in training mode for months) detected them and called in a warning. Although the operators reported a target echo larger than anything they had ever seen, an untrained officer at the new and only partially activated Intercept Center, Lieutenant Kermit A. Tyler, presumed the scheduled arrival of six B-17 bombers was the source.

Currently playing Red Alert 3, so I'm getting a kick out of these...

Oh, and the second part of my Weeners about the Americans assuming the Japanese were businesslike in their timing was a joke. Why so serious?

blast! Weeners.

argh.

/bewbies.

The US was reading the Japanese diplomatic code, and had deduced that they were planning on an attack --somewhere--. The most likely target was Manila and Clark Field; Pearl Harbor was way, way down on the list of potential sites.

However, the Japanese have recently been rewriting their own history books to reflect this general's view. They portray the US as an imperialist nation that was bound and determined to keep Japan in economic thralldom by shutting off resources they needed to continue their war in China. They admit to the Chinese war, but couch it in a way to indicate Japan was trying to 'civilize' the Chinese. By controlling all the lesser Asian nations, Japan could bring all of those people into an age of prosperity and peace (and Japanese domination, of course).

It's all apologistic bullshiat, but it's the kind of mental gymnastics Japan is going through to deal with their history.

It's a triiiiiiick!

Bendal: They portray the US as an imperialist nation

So the US was NOT an imperialist nation, at the time? How about Britain, France?

After the war Britain still ruled India, and the French waltzed back into Vietnam after Vietnam managed to get rid of the Japanese.

Let's just say there was already a model of what an "advanced" nation does, at the time.

006andahalf: Oh, and the second part of my Weeners about the Americans assuming the Japanese were businesslike in their timing was a joke. Why so serious?

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm meter needs a bit of tuning.

Bit'O'Gristle: The declaration of war was late due to a translation problem with the coding machine, and the attack was a "suprise".

Actually, considering that the Japanese enforced radio silence both immediately previous to and during the attack, I'd say it was probably meant to be a surprise.

And since the U.S. had already cracked their radio code, and the Japanese didn't transmit anything about the attack, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. and FDR couldn't have directly known about it.

/Last part directed to the conspiracy theorists
//Boobies on Fark
///Also, what's a "suprise?"

Cato, this is your employer speaking. I am calling off the attack for tonight!

OTA BENGA: The Japanese codes had been broken prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and several dispatches were intercepted by diverse sources indicating the attack was on the way, but all of them were blocked before anyone at Pearl Harbor could be informed of the approaching attack.

Thanks to the broken codes and intercepted messages, Roosevelt's cabinet already knew, in advance, the approximate date of a likely attack and the movements of the Japanese fleet.

The attack was extremely successful in swaying the American public in support of a massive military buildup.

The Pearl Harbor attack was certainly no surprise to those in the upper echelons of American politics.

Nonononono, Roosevelt didnt have foreknowledge about the attacks, Oswald acted alone and the Civil War was about slavery. You better get your history right, buddy.

"a blockade isn't quite just "sitting quietly and doing nothing"

Embargo /= blockade.

The US was doing the former, which is quite different.

And they have argued over history books for decades, it's nothing new. When it happens, it's all over the papers. People know about the controversy, and even books that give the entire war short shrift don't pretend that nothing happened.

Yes, there are committees that try to rewrite "new, patriotic" textbooks. "Group for making new textbooks" is a big one. These are not looked upon as mainstream. Recently they have had some large defeats that were all over the news.

Are there batshiat insane people who deny that the country ever did anything wrong? Absolutely. Lots of 'em hang out on the internet, and tend to get into racist flamewars. But, they are not mainstream.

Again, note that in TFA the guy was dismissed for making these remarks.

But also notice that the rhetoric that the deniers use is that they don't like kids having a "bad view" or "guilty view" of their country, they should be able to be happily patriotic, etc. That rhetoric sound familiar?

flimsyexcuse:
//Boobies on Fark
Delightful. I meant to say that this is the proverbial "Alpha" of any and all future postings on this website. But boobies are nice too.

I wish they'd just provided the whole essay to pick over.

PunGent: "a blockade isn't quite just "sitting quietly and doing nothing"

Embargo /= blockade.

The US was doing the former, which is quite different.

QFT

Also as a us marine on Okinawa I am getting a kick out of these replys...

PunGent: The US was doing the former, which is quite different.

It's still not "doing nothing and uninvolved."

I don't buy this guy's remarks. I'm just pointing out that the war was already going ON in Asia, and that the US wasn't entirely unconcerned and just completely sitting it out - and yeah, there's reasons why embargoing them was done.